Reading mode: Light Dark

G9 vs LX3

Go to last post
I think it's a bit early to say, Jose; PB's reviews are OK, and in this case I was surprised that they managed an LX3 for testing so fast.

But much more methodical reviews have yet to come and, as you say, perhaps it'd be better anyway to compare the LX3 with the expected G10.
 
Well, if they did a review based on a pre-production model, then the results may get better.

Anyway, although when i read a review i like to check evrything that it shows, like the 100% crops of different ISOs and whatsoever, what i give most importance is the sample images that they post. These are images taken on real life situations by a serious photographer, not an amateur like me and most of the people that Panasonic aims at.

All I can say is that the samples i've seen so far haven't impressed me... especially for a camera that claims the best IQ in compact market... The LX3 is nowhere near the G9 or the DP1...
 
I have a hunch the G10 may turn out to be a large sensor compact, maybe APS-C. Would be nice. Or, who knows, a new line.

One thing: I think the G9's wide end is not enough for me. I have used it and, in so many situations, how I wished I had a wider lens. Any experience with teh WA adapter?
--
Regards, Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/11435304@N04
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/
 
I'm a bit more "pessimistic"...

I think Canon will announce a G10, and it will probably be a G9 with 14 MP on a 1/1.6" sensor and a 6x or 5x zoom lens starting at 28 mm.

Everything else will probably remain the same, but in my opinion that is good news.

Camera manufacturers may want to grant everybody's wishes, but they have to make sure that IQ remains sky high. That's the philosophy that attracted me to Canon.
 
Photography Blogs first LX3 review is not a professionally conducted review. Its a hurried review with basic descriptions of the camera's features and handling.

The IQ testing leaves much to be desired. No where near the quality of reviews of other more renowned review sites.

Regarding the G10 being APS-C... sorry, that WILL not happen. It would take a different series... maybe Canon will put in an APS-C sensor in one of their newer offerings, but it won't be inside the next G series upgrade i.e. G10.

The LX3 does not have to be too much better than the G10. It just has to come closer in IQ to wean a few G-series buyers away. There are a few things to dislike about the G9. Hopefully the G10 will be the answer that deals with these oft-mentioned requests/complaints here.

--
Click

 
Have to admit I'm really sitting on the fence on this one. Part of me want's to pull the trigger and get in line for the LX3. But there's something inside me supporting an inner patience to wait and see if there's a G10 coming soon. Luckily I'm not really pressed for time on the purchase. I just want to get as high a quality image from the camera as my money can buy..............but I'm tired of full-sized DSLR cameras.
 
Image quality concerns aside, a compact with NO telephoto? Huh?

Well, not for me, anyway.

--
-------------------------------------------------
'Hit Refresh if pix do not appear. Flaky ISP at work.'

 
There have been a lot of both good and bad images posted from the LX3 over in the Panasonic forum, all from pre-release cameras. But I think the good ones compare very favorably to the G9. Clearly the lens is sharper wide open, and that 24mm f/2.0 lens is exactly what I miss on the G9.

Going back through my image library I find that well over 90% of what I shoot is at WA, so if I need telephoto, I'll pull out the SLR. WA, low light capability, and decent IQ are the features I seek the most in a compact, and the LX3 seems (so far) to check off those boxes. If the new G camera comes with a more crowded sensor, and a 28mm f/2.8 lens, then it had better blow the LX3 out of the water IQ-wise to tempt me. But I'm not holding my breath about that.

Still, I'll wait to see what Canon coughs up.

David
 
WoodWorks said:
Going back through my image library I find that well over 90% of what
I shoot is at WA, so if I need telephoto, I'll pull out the SLR.
Click to expand...
It seems there are a lot of us. My only telephoto shots from compacts are the odd sports action attempt where I chuckle and wish I'd brought the DSLR and long lens. Same for the occasion humorous attempt to shoot wildlife at a distance. Likewise, when circumstances call for a serious WA shot, out comes the DSLR.

To me, the difference between compact and DSLR is much more apparent at longer focal lengths. I feel like I can get away with more at the mid to wide angle with a compact. With LX3's fast lens, it gets even better.

To be fair, if I did not own a DSLR, I may give more weight to telephoto abilities.
 
Photographyblog.com describes its methodology as follows:

" ... All of the sample images in this Review were taken using the 10M Fine (3648x 2736) JPEG ... "

And the posted images there "have not been altered in any way," according to the review.

While there is certainly something to be learned from straight-out-of-the-camera jpegs at default settings, I would not base my final judgment on them.

Even when I use a jpeg-only compact camera -- which is pretty often, by the way -- I frequently dial in exposure compensation, adjust saturation, etc. And that's before the post-processing, which also (hopefully !) makes a difference in the final result.

I realize that these 'modifications' introduce too many variables for the sort of tests typically done on review sites, so I tend to wait for photographers' comments and photos. And I'm especially reliant upon comments and photos from people who take the sort of photos I take: street shots.

So I'm waiting for users' comments. Then I'll agonize over whether to get a new compact, and if so, which one. :-)

http://flickr.com/photos/michael-s/
 
Dynamic Range vs. sharpness
--

About a month ago I was ready to buy a G9 (just getting back into photography after being seriously in it during the film days). One thing that bothered me about the G9 (was a limited dynamic range, apparent when looking at posted pictures. Looking at the LX3, I definitely see a greater dynamic range in the photos out so far. I do notice that the pictures look softer, however, than the Canon. I wonder how much of that is due to the way NR is applied, and consequently how much could be adjusted, either by the sharpening setting on the camera or in post-processing, and finally whether the problem could be rendered moot by shooting in RAW. I notice that a few RAW photos have been posted, but I can't open the RW2 files that the LX3 uses.

I will probably wait to see what the G10 looks like but I would appreciate any thoughts on these issues. When I buy whichever camera, it will probably be my principal camera for some time before I get fully into the DSLR world (I'm working on my wife about the cost of photography right now). There are other issues I'm weighing, but for now I'll limit it to this one.
 
Just for a project, save one of the best jpg images you've seen posted for the LX3. Do some post processing with whatever program you use. See what your opinion of the camera is after that.................and just remember that you've just processed a jpg and not even a RAW image.
 
I tried a little simple post processing (Photoshop CS). Kicking up the sharpening one notch, and the photo took on much a Canon look; indeed it made a difference. Two notches and it began to look artificial. All in JPEG.
 
I am currently using a G9, and the quality with RAW up to ISO 400 is acceptable to me. Mind you, I rarely use/need ISO 400. I have used LX1/LX2 in the past, and with some Neta Image work, RAW files at ISO 400 were acceptable too.

It looks like the LX3 has better ISO 400 than the LX2, which is good news. My standard for ISO 400 is Provia 400X slide film, so I do not mind a small amount of noise!

I will wait to see if, and what, the G10 will look like. But the LX3 is extremely attractive for my type of photography, especially for travels. And the fast Leica lens seems to be a winner, with low distortion and no chromatic aberration. Maybe the G10 will have 28mm wide-angle lens, but Canon are not very fond of that focal length in their compacts, and when they do make compacts with 28mm, the results are not as good as the Panasonic/Leica ones.
 
Terreve said:
I notice that a
few RAW photos have been posted, but I can't open the RW2 files that
the LX3 uses.
Click to expand...
Same problem here. Can't open them. Even tried SilkyPix 3.0.19, no luck. I guess we have to wait for the version that ships with the camera.
 
The G9 is an excellent all-around camera with a decent zoom range from 35-210, but I find the 35mm wideangle to be limiting, especially indoors. 24-28mm is a more useful wideangle and that's what the LX3 has. Furthermore, it has a wide f/2 compared to the G9's f/2.8. Yes, I agree the 60mm telephoto on the LX3 is limiting and I would prefer 85mm, but at the long end it has a f/2.8 aperture, compared with the Canon's f/4.8. But with a 3x teleconverter on the LX3, you can get the equivalent of 180mm @ f/2.8! Canon gives you 210mm at f/4.8.

The other problem with the LX3 is that it doesn't have a optical viewfinder whereas the Canon has one, albeit not very good one. To get an optical viewfinder, Panasonic offers a external viewfinder that's mounted on the hotshoe, but you get a very bright and useful viewfinder.

I suspect the "G10" will be more like the Nikon P6000 with a 28-210 zoom f/3.3 -f/5.6 and 14Mp sensor. I was going to buy a G9, then the LX3 comes out. I'll wait and see what the "G10" looks like.
Jose Augusto said:
After looking deeply at this review
( http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_panasonic_lumix_dmc_lx3.php ),
i think the G9 remains the king of compact digital cameras, at least
untill a G10 arrives. I'm defenitily keeping mine...

IMHO, in IQ the LX3 is nowhere near the G9. The only thing the LX3
takes advantage is the wide angle, but with the trade off of
telephoto.

Tell me your thoughts!
Click to expand...
 
I just looked at varying ISO posts by a new LX3 owner. IMHO my Fuji F31 smokes it at high ISO, MUCH less noise and better colors...... and I think I am getting good results with my G9 .. check my outdoor stuff on the Thailand trip last month at http://www.picasaweb.ggogle.com/midareff the indoor stuff is the F31 I'm open to all constructive help and pointers.... I shoot jpeg only and try and minimize PP.
--
Just Marty
 
One of the things many of those who are dismissing the LX3 seem to ignore is the faster lens. At WA, the LX3's f/2.0 lens is allows twice as much light in as most other's (including the G9 and F31) f/2.8 lens. And at full tele (yes, it's only 60mm) the LX3 is still only f/2.8. So at WA (and it's 24mm on the LX3!) what you're seeing at ISO 400 on the LX3 is equivalent to the G9's and F31's ISO 800. At full tele, it's even less of a contest. Comparing apples to apples, I'd say the LX3 is quite impressive in low light.

David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top